Core Viewpoint - The Supreme Court's ruling on capital gains tax for Tiger Global Management's exit from Flipkart has led to a reassessment among foreign investors regarding tax treaties with jurisdictions like Mauritius, Singapore, and the Netherlands [1][18]. Legal Context - The Supreme Court accepted the tax department's argument that Tiger Global used Mauritius as a conduit for treaty benefits, with actual control in the US [2]. - Justice Pardiwala emphasized national sovereignty in international taxation, indicating that taxation is a core part of a nation's rights [11][12]. Case Background - The case involves Walmart's 2018 acquisition of 77% of Flipkart for approximately $16 billion, with Tiger Global selling part of its stake for about $1.6 billion, while its Mauritius-based companies received around ₹14,440 crore [5][6]. - Tiger Global claimed tax exemption under the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, arguing that investments were made before April 1, 2017 [6]. Supreme Court Ruling - The Supreme Court ruled that Tiger Global is liable for capital gains tax in India, stating that the Mauritian companies were merely conduits without real business substance [8]. - The court clarified that a Tax Residency Certificate does not automatically confer treaty benefits and that arrangements primarily for tax benefits can be scrutinized [9][10]. Justice Pardiwala's Opinion - Justice Pardiwala's separate opinion highlighted the importance of economic independence and warned against external pressures influencing domestic tax policies [12][13]. - He advocated for a dynamic interpretation of tax treaties to align with changing global trade patterns [14]. Future Implications - Justice Pardiwala's opinion may influence future tax treaty negotiations, emphasizing source-based taxation and strong Limitation of Benefits (LOB) clauses [16]. - Suggested safeguards include GAAR overrides, taxing digital economies, and regular treaty reviews to ensure alignment with domestic laws [17]. Investor Impact - The ruling indicates a tougher, substance-based approach to taxation, reinforcing India's tax sovereignty in cross-border transactions, which may affect foreign investors, private equity, and venture capital funds [18].

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme Court upheld the Indian tax department's claim that capital gains from Tiger Global's $1.6 billion exit from Flipkart in 2018 are taxable in India, reversing a previous ruling by the Delhi high court [1][2][3] Tax Implications - The ruling may alter how India taxes foreign investors and interprets the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) [2] - The Supreme Court emphasized that the real control and decision-making of Tiger Global's investments were in the US, indicating that the Mauritius entities were merely routing vehicles [5][20][23] Treaty Changes - The India-Mauritius tax treaty was amended in 2016 to prevent tax avoidance, stating that shares acquired on or after April 1, 2017, would be taxed in India, while older investments were "grandfathered" [4][18] - The court ruled that tax residency certificates alone are insufficient for tax exemption, and the tax department can investigate the actual control behind the investment structure [6][8] Future Implications - The verdict opens the door for re-examination of past exits and could lead to increased scrutiny of exits involving Mauritius-based entities [10][12] - Investments made before March 31, 2019, that benefited from the DTAA will be affected, with different tax rates applicable based on the acquisition date [11][12] Industry Impact - Private equity and foreign portfolio investors need to reassess their investment structures and consider potential tax litigation risks [13] - The ruling signifies a dilution of the tax residency certificate's importance and highlights the use of general anti-avoidance rules (GAAR) in India's tax treaty jurisprudence [14]